Senate Republicans’ profiles in moral cowardice

nhboy

Ubi bene ibi patria
Link to original source.

"In 1945, in the mountains of northern Italy, a U.S. Army second lieutenant, attempting to reach a downed radio man, fell wounded under a hail of German machine-gun fire. When the lieutenant was brought to the hospital, the doctors at first thought he would die; even after he pulled through surgery, they assumed he would never walk again. But though his right arm, nearly severed by bullets, was forever crippled, the lieutenant did walk again — all the way to Capitol Hill, where Bob Dole would represent the state of Kansas for nearly 40 years in the House and Senate, his career culminating in the Republican Party’s nomination of him for president in 1996.

On Tuesday, as the 89-year-old Dole looked on, the same party that once nominated him cowardly rejected what may very well be his last cause.

On that day, as you may already know, the Senate voted on the U.N. Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities. This treaty, which Dole had vocally supported, would extend to the rest of the world many of the rights that disabled Americans already have under the landmark Americans with Disabilities Act. Such a vote should be a policy and moral no-brainer. But Republicans voted it down; the treaty fell five votes short of the two-thirds majority required for ratification.

The 38 Republican senators who voted no felt pressure from the rightward fringe, which fanned fears of a conspiracy where the United Nations and foreign governments could dictate to the parents of disabled children. Sweater enthusiast Rick Santorum, one of the leading opponents of the treaty, demonstrated this bizarre logic when he wrote the day after the vote:

[The treaty] gives too much power to the U.N., and the unelected, unaccountable committee tasked with overseeing its implementation, while taking power and responsibility away from our elected representatives and, more important, from parents and caregivers of disabled persons. … Finally, the treaty doesn’t accomplish the principle purpose that its advocates say it will. Supporters of [the treaty] argue that the United States needed to ratify this treaty in order to give our nation a seat at the table in advocating for the plight of the disabled abroad. … However, the United States passing this treaty would do nothing to force any foreign government to change their laws or to spend resources on the disabled. That is for those governments to decide."

.....

"These senators shook Dole’s good hand, looked him in the eye and, once he left the floor, turned their backs on him, on his fellow disabled veterans and on disabled people throughout the world. They did not stand tall and proud against the treaty.

No, these senators “whispered their opposition” or “gestured from their chairs.” (Remember that senators, no strangers to C-Span, know that the network’s microphones can pick up their votes if they wish to be heard.)

These were not the actions of men and women who were proud of their vote. These senators knew, privately, that their vote was wrong. And yet, pathetically, they did not have the courage or the decency to say so. It was nothing less than moral cowardice, a failure that should shame them for the rest of their lives."
 

awpitt

Main Streeter
One would think that Americans could come together on helping the cause of the disabled....
 

Attachments

  • dole.jpg
    dole.jpg
    48.9 KB · Views: 60

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
this country does plenty for the Disabled, WE do not need some unelected bureaucrat at the UN telling us how to RUN OUR Country
 

BOP

Well-Known Member
this country does plenty for the Disabled, WE do not need some unelected bureaucrat at the UN telling us how to RUN OUR Country

Why not? We already have an unelected bureaucrat running our country into the ground.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
"In 1945, in the mountains of northern Italy, a U.S. Army second lieutenant, attempting to reach a downed radio man, fell wounded under a hail of German machine-gun fire. When the lieutenant was brought to the hospital, the doctors at first thought he would die; even after he pulled through surgery, they assumed he would never walk again. But though his right arm, nearly severed by bullets, was forever crippled, the lieutenant did walk again — all the way to Capitol Hill, where Bob Dole would represent the state of Kansas for nearly 40 years in the House and Senate, his career culminating in the Republican Party’s nomination of him for president in 1996.

I've known about *this* for years - I even heard a Paul Harvey piece where his injuries were SO bad, they even made references to him in front of the other soldiers - and HIM - declaring, more or less "at least you didn't get it as bad as him". Harvey went on to say that a great deal of his recovery was a strong self-will and determination.

What struck me in '96 was, you never heard about this hardly at all. In fact, people made FUN of the man's gimpy arm.
 

awpitt

Main Streeter
You two idiots do know that Republicans are not the majority in the Senate, don't you?

You, idiot, do realize the Constitution requires 2/3 vote (not a simple majority) in order to ratify a treaty, don't you?
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
You, idiot, do realize the Constitution requires 2/3 vote (not a simple majority) in order to ratify a treaty, don't you?

And a treaty that is ratified becomes federal law. So why do we do it? Especially when our Constitution makes it law, but other nations are free to violate it when they want to.

Ask the Republican Senators who HAVE disabled children - who voted against it. I mean, didn't they vote against it because they are mean and hateful?
 

BOP

Well-Known Member
I've known about *this* for years - I even heard a Paul Harvey piece where his injuries were SO bad, they even made references to him in front of the other soldiers - and HIM - declaring, more or less "at least you didn't get it as bad as him". Harvey went on to say that a great deal of his recovery was a strong self-will and determination.

What struck me in '96 was, you never heard about this hardly at all. In fact, liberals made FUN of the man's gimpy arm.

:fixed:
 

MMDad

Lem Putt
And a treaty that is ratified becomes federal law. So why do we do it? Especially when our Constitution makes it law, but other nations are free to violate it when they want to.

Ask the Republican Senators who HAVE disabled children - who voted against it. I mean, didn't they vote against it because they are mean and hateful?

One reason is that they don't feel it's appropriate to ratify a treaty in a lame duck session. Another is that they should be concentrating on this minor fiscal cliff thing instead of feel good crap. Another is that this is a purely symbolic treaty since our disability laws are already more stringent than the treaty. And most of all, we don't need anything from the UN becoming a US law.
 
C

czygvtwkr

Guest
I asked you in the previous post about this why should we sign treaty after treaty that we already comply with and other countries seem free to violate whenever they want? You did not have an answer or were too much of a coward to try.
 

BOP

Well-Known Member
You, idiot, do realize the Constitution requires 2/3 vote (not a simple majority) in order to ratify a treaty, don't you?

We weren't talking about that, we were talking about the vote in the US Senate. Try to keep up, numbnuts.
 

awpitt

Main Streeter
We weren't talking about that, we were talking about the vote in the US Senate. Try to keep up, numbnuts.


I was refering to the vote in the Senate. The Senate votes on treaties. You're the one that needs to try to keep up, numbnuts. Treaties require 2/3 of the vote in the Senate.
 
C

czygvtwkr

Guest
awpitt, can you answer my question on why we should sign treaties that we already comply with and are probably going to be the only ones following it anyway?
 

awpitt

Main Streeter
awpitt, can you answer my question on why we should sign treaties that we already comply with and are probably going to be the only ones following it anyway?


You're assuming we'd be the only ones following it. I don't believe that will be the case. Since we already follow the ADA requirements, it won't impact us but if we sign on, it might cause some countries to comply as well. It shows leadership. If more countries sign on and comply or make progress toward, disabled Americans traveling overseas will benefit from ADA style facilites in the other countries. In the end, if it doesn't work out, we can always withdraw from the treaty.
 
C

czygvtwkr

Guest
Awpitt, thanks for providing an answer. I think the boy is simply for things that republicans are against.

I ask, why should we bother showing leadership though when all it gets us is grief? We are either a leader or we are not, there is no leader on some things but not others. I think that countries that care enough to have handicapped designed things would be the only ones to sign the treaty anyway.
 

Lurk

Happy Creepy Ass Cracka
The Americans with Disabilities Act is the worst-written and most-devious power grab since Social Security. When originally proposed, the definition of "Disabled" was purposely left vague but all the promotional materials featured children with leg braces, on crutches, with cerebral palsy. An occasional blind person was included but most of the promotions were about children who were visibly disabled. Flash forward 20 years and we now find sexual perverts classified as disabled, someone with OCD as disabled, someone who currently suffers from gender confusion syndromes is disabled. Of course the UN wants to get the US under its control with its own law. They see how it can be perverted and used to their own purposes. And the US will end up footing the bill for global enforcement.
 
Top